Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. slakr \ talk / 13:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No third neutral references to prove its notability. Only third party references are obscure news pieces that talk about a FIR of fraud in October been filled against the organization in the local Varanasi papers. This article created in November reads like a PR activity to promote the organization, all based on their own websites and blogs. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 06:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there is no third neutral reference. Although there is indeed an over-abundance of references to the Society web site and Society managed blogs I would not say that there are op third neutral references. Most of this links have an active hyperlink to these independent sources, so they can be verified independently. I counted 31 such references, viz. See External references- Wikipedia page. Kautilya. --Rahulkepapa (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "No third neutral references to prove its notability"
 * 1)  Articles 19(1)(c) and 30 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961, Public Trusts Acts of various states, Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.
 * 2)  TVP channel, Youtube
 * 3)   Arthashastra, Penguin.
 * 4)   Filocafè, Trip Advisor.
 * 5)  Cape Town Declaration, Responsible tourism partnership.
 * 6)  Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys, Routledge.
 * 7)   Heritage Resources if Varanasi, Indian Heritage Cities Network.
 * 8)  Banaras, the City Revealed, Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts.
 * 9)   Proposing Varanasi for the World Heritage List of UNESCO, Varanasi Development Authority
 * 10)  Singh, Rana P.B., Vrinda Dar and S. Pravin, Rationales for including Varanasi as heritage city in the UNESCO World Heritage List, National Geographic Journal of India (Varanasi) 2001, 47:177-200
 * 11)  The Varanasi Heritage Dossier, Wikiversity
 * 12)  Varanasi Heritage Zone, Varanasi Development Authority.
 * 13)  You can place Kashi on Unesco world heritage list, The Times of India.
 * 14)  Unplanned construction destroying riverfront majesty, The Times of India.
 * 15)   थाती पर मंडराता खतरा, India Today.
 * 16)  Ganga continues to be exploited, The Times of India.
 * 17)  K. G. BalaKrishnan, Chief Justice of India (8th Oct. 2008). "Growth of Public Interest Litigation in India". Supreme Court of India.
 * 18)  Adv. Mihir Deasi and Adv. Kamayani Bali Mahabal (ed.). "Introduction to Public Interest Litigation". Introduction to Public Interest Litigation, in Health Care Case Law in India – A Reader by CEHAT and ICHRL. Retrieved 2012-04-26.
 * 19)  THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, Gvt. of India.
 * 20)   Allahabad High Court Order Dated 26 May 2006, Allahabad High Court.
 * 21)   PIL 31229 of 2005 - 14 March 2013, Allahabad High Court Judgment.
 * 22)  Allahabad High Court Order of 9 October 2013, Allahabad High Court.
 * 23)  Allahabad High Court Order Dated 29 July 2013, Allahabad High Court.
 * 24)  हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार से वाराणसी के घाटों के सौंदर्यीकरण का प्रस्ताव मांगा, नवभारत टाइम्स
 * 25)   एनजीओ के खिलाफ निकाला जुलूस, जागरण.
 * 26)  कौटिल्य सोसायटी के सदस्यों की गिरफ्तारी न होने से क्षुब्ध शिवसैनिकों ने जुलूस निकाला, Gandiv Hindi Daily.
 * 27)  धर्म नगरी में विदेशियों को हुक्का, काशी में उबाल, LiveVns.com.
 * 28)  NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herals.
 * 29)  Facebook expose: 'Hookah bar' run by NGO in garb of cultural activity, Daily Bhaskar.
 * 30)   Social organization booked for running 'hukka bar'; 9 arrested, IBN live.
 * All high-quality references like Routledge, Times of India, UNESCO DO NOT mention the organization at all, but reference sentences about Varanasi, the city. Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court keeps a record of each PIL and court case, that does not establish notability. "NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herald" is the coverage the organization has really got in the Varanasi editions of newspapers. Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

The article mentioned by the editor who proposes the deletion of the Kautilya Society page is:  Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies published in    ⇒ Wikinews on Sunday, November 17, 2013. It is not about a fraud case but about a Public Interest Litigation. Wikinews editors are actively engaged in revisions to make sure that its articles are of good quality and it is unlikely that any PR activity over there will get passed by the editors. In the case of this article you can see the writing and revision process in n:Talk:Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies and the final   "pass" given there by  Bddpaux. --Rahulkepapa (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Obscure news pieces that talk about a FIR of fraud in October been filled against the organization in the local Varanasi papers. This article created in November reads like a PR activity to promote the organization, all based on their own websites and blogs."
 * Rahulkepapa forgot to mention that Wikinews article is written by him. Wikipedia and other sister projects are not contributedWP:RS. The PIL has hardly any coverage, it is the hookah bar (under the organization is accused of fraud) that have news coverage. Redtigerxyz  Talk 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not true that the PIL has not coverage in the Indian and specifically the Varanasi press.  The fact that rahulkepapa was the main contributor to this article does not imply that he has no authority to comment about it.  His point are valid that the article went under intense scrutiny and only after such scrutiny it was passed.  I feel that Redtigerxyz is taking the issue too personally. The PIL for heritage for the heritage in Varanasi has a lot of significance for the city and beyond and more debate and partecipation is needed. Kautilya Society is a well known NGO in the city and more people will take part to the debate.  Keep the article under scrutiny but please do not delete it as this will not give the opportunity for more additions and corrections. --Abufausto (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Abufausto (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep Comment  The objection is raised that  "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I agree that it seems that the major contributor to this articles seems to know the matter first hand. However it does not appear to me that there is evidence of a conflict of interests. as defined by the Wikipedia policies as a case "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". In fact there is ample spaces given also to the argumentation of those who oppose the Society. (Redtigerxyz only refers to those articles!) This reveals that the contributor has not been partial although he may still have personal inclinations that he was not sufficiently able to clean up. But he tried to be "objective" and refer favorable and unfavorable augmentations bring about the Society. Heritage protection in Varanasi is a hot issue and requesting "deletion" before requesting "additional sources required" is excessive.  More time is needed to be given for improvements and corrections that can modify the initial contributions and bring it more in line with Wikipedia requirements. --Abufausto (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck your second "Keep". You may only !vote once. Further comments should be preceeded by Comment. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. As Redtigerxyz noticed, the article did in fact contain an inadequate number of citations. As Abufausto suggested, other Wikipedia editors would need to contribute to the article by inserting more citations. I will work on and add more citations and references from the Indian media that cover the main activities of the Kautilya Society on heritage protection and the Public Interest Litigation. Please keep the article and allow more time to do such a revision.Vrindadar (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Vrindadar (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. I have a copy of the book cited in the references -  Banaras, the City Revealed, Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts. -  and Kautilya Society activities for heritage protection are described at page 77 and 78.  Kautilya Society work for the heritage protection is also specifically mentioned in the following article quoted in the references: You can place Kashi on Unesco world heritage list, The Times of India.  Fleshandbones00 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Fleshandbones00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep - Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". Fighting a PIL for heritage protection is, in the Indian context, surely an important issue and information about a society doing this work deserves a place in the Wikipedia. In spite of the cultural importance of Varanasi, local stakeholders here may not have full knowledge of Wikipedia standards and rules but they should be given adequate time to contribute and improve the articles.  Some citations may be in excess but at least few independent sources surely prove the article's notability.  Redtigerxyz is excessive while saying that "NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herald" is the coverage the organization has really got in the Varanasi editions of newspapers"--Gaurigrazia (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Gaurigrazia (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would suggest keeping this wikipedia page and not deleting it. The page has a substantial number of references, a larger number than many Wikipedia pages that are currently not contested. I also don't understand the rational brought for by User:Redtigerxyz for deleting the page. It surely needs improvement but deleting the page does not do justice to either the organization nor its critics. Like most pages of organization on Wikipedia, there should be a section of in the page called "Controversies" where information gathered by User:Redtigerxyz can be inserted. I believe it is important that global media channels like Wikipedia give space to small non-government organizations and allow them to disseminate information of their projects on Wikipedia. In the Kautilya Society page one can see a lot of effort in drafting an informative page of high quality and this kind of participation should be promoted. Information for this page is surely taken from the page and blog of the Kautilya Society, but this is their official website and as such a reliable source of information. New-media articles and academic journals are not the only source of reliable information.

There is substantial information online showing the existence of Kautilya Socity, from news articles to tripadvisor and facebook to make it notable and subsequently eligible for a page on Wikipedia.

A last point, from my knowledge the society by googling it, it seems to be called "Kautilya Society" and not "Kautilya Society for intercultural dialogue" and would subsequently suggest changing the page name.Faustoaarya (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC) — Faustoaarya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You have already opined "Keep" above. Please stop bolding the word in further comments. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have confused you with User:Abufausto above, whose name is quite similar to yours. Voceditenore (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Note left on Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents about participation of "new" users. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete has nobody noticed how promotional this is?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  17:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NGO. Only independent, third-party RS (Times of India) is a few passing references.  Mini  apolis  00:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete The attempts at padding this article with "references" from their own websites, blogs, and YouTube videos; self-published material on Wikiversity, WikiBooks, WikiTravel, and WikiNews; multiple user-generated reviews in sites like TripAdvisor, etc.; primary source court documents; and extensive waffle about general environmental issues and Hindu philosophy cannot mask the fact that the subject comprehensively fails WP:NGO. The society brought a law-suit against some local hotels for illegal building works. Their targets brought counter-charges of them running a hotel for hookah-smoking tourists under the guise of an NGO. End of discussion. This organisation/hotel has received only passing mention in major news sources. There is absolutely no significant in-depth coverage in truly independent reliable sources of the society itself—its history, its impact, its activities (apart from running a hotel for hookah-smoking tourists and bringing a law suit). Even the interview with its founder has only one question about the society and brief answer at the very end of the interview (, p. 20). This article is also so promotional and full of soapboxing for their cause, that one could additionally argue for deletion via WP:BLOWITUP. It would need a fundamental re-write from zero to bring it anywhere near the semblance of an encyclopedia article. Even then, there would be no independent publications to source any assertions about the society, apart from the fact they brought a lawsuit against some local hotels and had some non-notable charges brought against themselves. The COI here is blatantly obvious. The "Keep" !votes are all coming from the article's creator (who also wrote the WikiVersity, WikiBooks, and WikiNews pages and made the multiple videos which are linked from the article) and several other single-purpose accounts (at least one of which appears to have been created for the purpose of participating in this AfD, two of which have remarkably similar names, and another who has the same name as the Society's secretary quoted in the article and speaking in the videos). Note also their blatant advertising links on Commons . Although COI in itself is not reason for deletion if an article is fixable (which this one clearly isn't), the commentary by these editors in the AfD discussion needs to be seen in that light. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.